Here's a dedicated thread on the topic of the top conferences splitting from the NCAA.

This topic has been mentioned for years, got some more light in the early 2000's when Bob Huggins mentioned it. But it's become a real topic of late due to comments by John Calipari and with conferences like the Big Ten discussing paying athletes a small stipend...something that unless approved by the NCAA might force a split is further pursued.

* Membership would be 70-80 schools split into 4-6 conferences based on regions. * It would assume that the membership would be the current 6 BCS conferences (12, 12, 12, 10, 9, 12 members).* Since this is a trimming of the crop, it's likely that the group WOULD still consider some schools from the outside...just not all of them.Obvious picks would be Notre Dame and BYU. Boise St. likely makes the cut as well. UNLV and New Mexico likely would too to include those states. Might even see UMass included at some point since it would offer another population rich New England base. Temple as well for the Philly market and likely others.

End result could be something like keeping the 6 BCS conference somewhat as they are, but just including a handful of schools to fill in the spots. If there were 72 schools, then you could see a clean (6) conferences with 12 members each.

If this happened, it would mean the Big Ten, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 likely remain as they are. But there might be the need for some "swapping". Boston College, for instance, would make more sense back in the northeast pool where Temple and maybe even perhaps UMass one day could be added for 12 members. TCU of course would make more sense in the Big 12, but that might not be an option if BYU were to join that conference along with a 2nd school out of the UNLV, New Mexico, Boise St. pool. Of course, if the money made sense for all parties, then there's no reason why Conference A couldn't have more members than Conference B if the total pool of schools were over 72.

One issue that I think deserves it's own post is that IFFFF this split ever happened in the future, here's a twist:

I think you'd still find that the NCAA would have no way to really counter the move...and it's not a stretch to think that they would WANT and ALLOW these schools to remain in the NCAA for non football/basketball sports. It might seem odd now to think so, but in the long run, the secondary/non-revenue sports benefit by still being connected in some way to the power schools.

Take UNLV out of the Big 12 so it has 12 and get rid of UMass & Temple out of the BE giving them 12. There's your 72, call it a day.

I'd keep UNLV and ax Boise State. Boise State might have the better football program but UNLV has a much better market. Boise State has a few bad years and they will be worthless. UNLV isn't nearly as strong in football but they have the market and the better name recognition. To market themeselves better they may want a name change similar to Boise State's. Las Vegas State. Although UNLV has a recognition level similar to UCLA's.

you mean big 12, UNLV is a short drive from the CA border. So what's the real difference on distance. Take the school that's good at football, that's what it's all about. Kansas was almost left out in the cold. Basketball doesn't get much better than them, that tells me football is the end all be all when its BCS. TCU basketball sucks too.

you mean big 12, UNLV is a short drive from the CA border. So what's the real difference on distance. Take the school that's good at football, that's what it's all about. Kansas was almost left out in the cold. Basketball doesn't get much better than them, that tells me football is the end all be all when its BCS. TCU basketball sucks too.

This would be for both football and basketball right? While Bulter, Gonzaga, Nova, and others don't stand a chance, UNLV brings good bball and a big market that the rest of the state could support and last time I checked Nevada is bigger than Idaho. The goal of adding additional non AQ schools to this league would be for markets that would transfer over to TV dollars. The argument for Boise St would be whether or not their football and "national" appeal overrides UNLV's basketball and the Nevada/Las Vegas market which is a tough call...

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

you mean big 12, UNLV is a short drive from the CA border. So what's the real difference on distance. Take the school that's good at football, that's what it's all about. Kansas was almost left out in the cold. Basketball doesn't get much better than them, that tells me football is the end all be all when its BCS. TCU basketball sucks too.

This would be for both football and basketball right? While Bulter, Gonzaga, Nova, and others don't stand a chance, UNLV brings good bball and a big market that the rest of the state could support and last time I checked Nevada is bigger than Idaho. The goal of adding additional non AQ schools to this league would be for markets that would transfer over to TV dollars. The argument for Boise St would be whether or not their football and "national" appeal overrides UNLV's basketball and the Nevada/Las Vegas market which is a tough call...

Exactly. It's why schools like BSU, UNLV, New Mexico make sense. And the same market argument favors schools like UMass as BC doesn't put much of a dent in the population rich Boston area on their own. Temple gives some access to Philly, which is needed to supplement Penn St.

you mean big 12, UNLV is a short drive from the CA border. So what's the real difference on distance. Take the school that's good at football, that's what it's all about. Kansas was almost left out in the cold. Basketball doesn't get much better than them, that tells me football is the end all be all when its BCS. TCU basketball sucks too.

This would be for both football and basketball right? While Bulter, Gonzaga, Nova, and others don't stand a chance, UNLV brings good bball and a big market that the rest of the state could support and last time I checked Nevada is bigger than Idaho. The goal of adding additional non AQ schools to this league would be for markets that would transfer over to TV dollars. The argument for Boise St would be whether or not their football and "national" appeal overrides UNLV's basketball and the Nevada/Las Vegas market which is a tough call...

Exactly. It's why schools like BSU, UNLV, New Mexico make sense. And the same market argument favors schools like UMass as BC doesn't put much of a dent in the population rich Boston area on their own. Temple gives some access to Philly, which is needed to supplement Penn St.

After mulling it over I think UNLV has more potential than Boise St for Super League TV dollars, Vegas is booming (despite the recent downturn) and Nevada is growing really fast, while Idaho is....well just Idaho, the Boise brand may be powerful now but do the other big brand schools like Texas, USC, Bama, tOSU, ND, FL St, ect... really want more national brands to compete with or to expand their brands by adding growing markets?

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

If the big schools were to leave the NCAA, one of the main reasons would be not to share with the smaller schools. Let's face it, the big boys don't like sharing their BCS bowl spots with the Boise State's and the TCU's of the world right now much less offering them conference memberships. I'm not even sure how much they like sharing the BCS money with the Big East and ACC.

I think Quinn's model of 67 teams, (12-12-12-12-10-9) may get knocked down to 64, four super conferences of 16. Personally, I like Quinn's idea of 72, 4-18 team conferences, but I don't think the Big 10, PAC 12 and SEC will.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum